Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
This is how these coaches were taught, and frankly this is how a lot of pro coaches were taught, they were lectured and encouraged by the previous generation of coaches. The Bill Peters got his lessons from his coach who got his lessons from his coach etc and etc. On top of that the really hyper successful coaches like the Scotty Bowmans, for example, were absolutely nasty pieces of work.
There were other coaches, like the Bob Johnsons for example who didn't take that route from player to assistant coach in the minors or the amateur ranks who clawed their ways to the NHL. The Johnson's who came through the coaching ranks via the college systems who viewed coaching as a science, a combination of systems and motivation and psychology theory.
|
This is 100% true.
I had one of my managers at work talk to me about the art and science of coaching or managing once and he said,
Quote:
|
"You don't just tell a kid what they're doing wrong, you tell him what he's doing right, and you... 'Coach' him out of what they're doing wrong."
|
It requires more thought and etiquette than most people have the patience for.
Coaching isn't manipulation and intimidation despite what has made some individuals like Darryl Sutter successful.
Manipulation and intimidation are lazy shortcuts that have diminishing returns.
This is why some coaches have an expiry date. Yeah, it can be hard to genuinely reach a person, connect with them, or motivate them to play better.
But that's why they're paid a lot of money. The coaching profession in hockey needs a wakeup call and to look in the mirror.
I haven't done a Hockey Canada course in a while, but childhood psychology should be the focal point taught to coaches before skills and systems. If you want better teams you need better players and if you want better players you need better people.